translated by cenere(at)inventati.org
A “first” fragment has been placed in the deconstruction of criminal trial, overall apparatus of secular moral-monster of justice and “logical” use of judgment, in which we introduce into the “dissolution” of any bourgeois law, that reflects and projects her “shadow” of cancellation of individual, also she delivers a resolution of the thorny specification and arduous path of antigiuridism. The path is hard to follow. A second fragment will speak about burocratical quibbles used in the rights obtained by procedural signed clauses, for the “certainty” of punishment, but this will happen in a second time. Now is the time to go out of the closet with no more implicit fear, in intrusion of “voices” who want to save, but they have the effect in the deception of the redemption or specifically in “repentance”. The essence turns “the living” repression under a light shading which transformes the sight (with the “thought” that looks) in a myopic and double-edged effect sight. Hiding the act of a denial implies a surrender and collapse to the repeated attempts, given by the world of the “normals”, in returning to the insidious hands of logic-compromise.
In this is expressed the evaluation of effects-signs of distinctive notes. In a choice that starts from the individual and returns to individual.
The Anarcho-nihilism/antisocial imprints strenght to my own words that are my “evil passions” too.
The condivision rejects very moral judgment.
The text coincides with “who I am” because I am irreproducible as an individual, that’s must be done “properly” into the condivision, as “union”.
In the “mean” there’s a “purpose” too : a “proposal” about a correlation of texts that will form an antigiuridic publication which will be edited by Edizioni Cerbero.
“The individual in rebellion aspires to become lawless” (Max Stirner)
Life burns like a candel1. The explanation of a heresy, that from imaginative becomes evidence, explores and analyzes the explicit : In a discordant world and necessary destruction, in search of an imbalance in the remote areas…
The “moral fracture” dissolves herself into the indefinable and inexplicable (not being learned by a common language) and involves at each step a new “conflicy” : impulse. Violent passion.
The a-moral principle rises in a reflection of instincts and impulses, into a force that must be consumed until it becomes “nothing”, from the “nothing” from which it comes.
Condamned by the “human” laws (devoted to utilitarianism), the free spirit-the anarcho-nihilist, is tied to a small community, with a common “thread” : the informal “happening” of the events.
Reject the mass and eradicate the concept of class, and the structure that supports her : “the right of society”. The insignificant determines the vital impulses of citizen “automaton of duty”, and concretes him in a radical demolition of the subject-individual : into a “faith” (with the principle of obedience), in which the “reason” pretends the absolute meaning of things.
“How many human beings have gone through life without ever waking up! And how many others realized that they were lliving only for the monotonous tick of clocks.” Emile Henry da “Colpo su colpo”.
The systematicity of logic and order, and the behavioral rules, affirm their role of the “definite” in a world dominated by the sacred order of the laws.
But the free spirit advances and goes beyond.
Chaos and chaotic of events change and take us with them, in a arrogant sharing of intentions, with pregnancy, like in a destructive act that burns the “codes of society”.
The experience of destroyer caos stands out in its uniqueness, instability and in the losing of every defined form, in an incessant flow of life, that always it’s death too.
The anarcho-nihilist incipit “crushes” the overall structure of values and the alleged uniqueness of things, which break up into an “apparent world”, and in the advent against what we can “see”, against what is embodied in men.
Speaking the enemy’s language, we align to its concepts:
In the systematic logic of articles of law, the “justice” requires a moral need, to judge the validity of the “right” to judgment, which is inalienable from (society-order).
“Pre-trial detention is proportionate to the size of the fact and to the penalty that you think may be imposed”.
The right-duty determines the proportion of penalty imposed according to judgment.
It determines the course of the offence according to its fluctuations in the legal-juridical matter, also assumes the sentence to be served, according the model prescribed by the established order.
The mundane judge becomes the eternal judge, his law and commandments are the nodal point of “punishment”.
The “mask of the right” stands between a choice of revolt (and denial of a juridical “mask”) and the acceptance of this “right”, in armony with a “limited world”, relegating the individual into impersonal, that transforms himself in a dead form, a life-non life.
The “insuperable limit” becomes the adhesion of the order-ordinary of things and calculation of the expected.
The belonging to the “delay” has a role of regulation which is principle-reflection of “reconciliation”.
The cementation of the respect between friends is transformed in a devoted bond, and turns attachment in affection.
The gap between free will and imposition (of the friendship’s role) is the logical conseguence of “readaptation”.
“The lawyer is the interpreter and mediator between laws and citizen, and in the performance of its mandate helps to understand the situations from a legal point of view, also he finds the shortest way and less expensive for the protection of a right.”
“I speak with the lawyer. An help to protect their rights and to recognize those of others.”
The individual falls in the contraddiction (the falsification of what happened) and enters in the logical principle of the “reason”.
Who “interprets” (the legal defence) this “right-duty” stands between the accused and who imputes, and “mediating” does his job.
He subordinates the individual-defendant to his own vision of mediation that gives to him the right, the “right” to defend.
In the interpretation-”faith” of the legal doctrine, the choice of a “shortest way” makes the boundaries of existence like a dream where the “cell” is the inevitable background of daily life.
The process of transformation is collocated between order and disorder (the fusion of chaos with existence). Annihilating the “first”, this process goes beyond the adaptation to the necessity of human community (in the reconciliation), where the free spirit seeks this disorder through vital impulses, and breaks and crosses the banks of a civilization built on “appearance”, and refuses to be judged.
The denial involves the capacity to look beyond appearance (the deductible) and is preferred to the net of codes-quibbles that cover the entire structure of the society order.
The anarchist-amoral antigiuridism imprints a sign of decoding in the criteria and discipline of a mere tool of adaptability to the legal doctrine (from and in which the “comforting” becomes “conformity”) and uproots his base:
The indefinable accordingly becomes the “risk” of the unknown.
Violating the codes of the society-order, we stick out and expose ourservels through the denial of absolute values and, pushing us to the base of this denial, we move in a continouous renewal and overcoming of own limits, in a universe dominated by the “logic”, counterpart of the “will”.
The anarchist-amoral antigiuridism, denying the existence of a “right”, breaks with the consequential logic, and in denial crushes every “logical” interpretation of being judged in a identity of the things.
The anarchist-amoral antigiuridism completes itself into the denial of every “legal defence” and uproots every opportunism, and destabilizing shows the boundaries of the irreparable in a world that does not belong to us.
In a break given by the endless possibilities, we nullify the labyrinth of prohibitions, and denying them we don’t recognize them, and we place ourselves at the “margins of society”.
1Max Stirner, “The Ego and Its Own” “But how does one use life? In using it up, like the candle, which one uses in burning it up. One uses life, and consequently himself the living one, in consumingit and himself. Enjoyment of lifeis using life up.